【作者】 姚建龙；

【导师】 何勤华；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法学院 ， 法律史， 2006， 博士

【摘要】 本文通过对美国少年司法起源与变迁史的考察发现,无论是多么伪善或者直白,少年司法起源与变迁背后的推动力均主要源自成人社会控制少年的需要;而少年司法政策的演变规律则呈现出在福利与惩罚之间调整其立场,在总体上走向折中主义的趋势;作为一种“隐蔽而迂回”的少年控制策略,福利是建构少年司法的旗帜,也是少年司法变迁中难以背弃的根基。19世纪以前的美国,大体处于“前少年司法时代”。在这一时期,少年被视为“小大人”。此时并不存在一个具有对成人社会权威和规则的基本破坏能力,但却还没有进入成人社会的特殊群体。因此,独立的少年司法这样一种国家对少年越轨的正式控制机制不可能、也没有必要存在。国家对“小大人”犯罪与对其它成人犯罪的反应一样,是一种类似于作用力与反作用力的“自然反应”——报应主义。随着现代童年观的逐渐形成,到19世纪的时候,少年因经济功能的丧失等原因逐渐从成人中分离了出来,而被纳入未成年人的范畴。伴随着少年的诞生,对于少年的特殊约束规则也逐渐产生了。少年开始被成人社会赋予(或强化)了特殊的、不同于成人的社会角色期待,例如应当受到监督、应当举止庄重、应当服从权威、应当勤奋等。这种社会角色期待的逐步形成,同时也意味着违反这些期待现象的产生,从这个意义上的确可以说少年罪错(juvenile delinquency)是被“发明”出来的。少年的诞生,意味着一个既已经基本具备破坏能力,但却又尚未进入成人世界的特殊群体的出现,成人社会很快对这一群体的到来感到了不安。与此同时,处在社会转型时期的美国,家庭、社区等传统非正式社会控制机制逐步弱化和瓦解,无法实现对少年行为的有效控制。而以严酷的惩罚为手段的传统刑事司法体系,又受到了强烈的批判。在这样的背景下,以为少年谋福利为“旗号”,建立“福利型”少年司法以完善对罪错少年(当然也包括整个少年群体)的控制机制,既是可能的也是十分必要的。1825年,纽约建立了美国第一个少年矫正机构——纽约庇护所,随后少年矫正机构体系在美国初步建立了起来。1899年,伊利诺斯州制定了《少年法院法》并在库克郡建立了美国也是世界上第一个少年法院。随后,少年法院运动在全美国展开。到20世纪前期,以“少年最大利益原则”为标志的福利型少年司法模式在全美国建立了起来。少年法院运动几乎把少年一切不墨守成规的行为都看成是越轨,并认为威胁了良好的秩序,而需要少年法院在“国家亲权”的名义下——爱的名义下,进行国家干涉和保护。自20世纪60年代以来,美国福利型少年司法模式开始面临着危机。从表面上来看,危机的起源是因为这种福利型少年司法模式没有赋予少年宪法性权利,没有遵循正当法律程序。但实际上,根源在于福利型少年司法模式出现了无法有效控制少年(罪错)的局面。另一个重要的因素则在于,少年成长社会环境的变化所导致的少年“成人化”,少年罪错尤其是少年暴力犯罪的恶化动摇了人们心目中少年纯真可爱的传统形象。美国少年司法的转型大体经历了两个阶段。第一个阶段约从20世纪60年代后期到80年代初,这是一个从“善心”到“善行”的转变过程。人们对少年司法关注的重心从福利型少年司法所宣称的“善心”转移到了少年所实际受到的处遇之上。为了改善少年司法系统中少年的待遇,出现了新的拯救儿童团体,这些组织致力于推动对少年权利的关注与保护。这一时期少年司法的发展深受新兴犯罪学理论——标签理论的影响,以正当程序、分流、非犯罪化、非机构化四大运动(即“4D运动”)为主要特征。仍然以少年保护为中心的少年司法第一次转型,非常巧妙而又成功地软化了少年司法与成人刑事司法之间的界限,为少年司法的进一步转型——走向通过惩罚的控制,做了充分地准备与铺垫。在当代古典犯罪学派的推波助澜下,大约从20世纪70年代后期开始,美国少年司法呈现出走向严罚的明显趋势,直到今天仍占据了美国少年司法政策的主导地位。少年司法的第一次转型至少仍声称是为了保护少年的权利,而第二次转型则干脆撕下了“福利”的面纱,直言社会防卫和少年控制。随着少年司法与成人刑事司法的日益趋同化,美国国内出现了两种截然对立的思潮。一种观点主张应当废除少年法院,采用控制成人犯罪的方式去控制少年罪错。而另一种观点则认为应当维持和发展少年司法与成人刑事司法二元分立的体制。事实上,只要少年与成人二元分立的童年观念还没有完全消退,只要少年还没有获得与成人一样的活动空间和行动自由,那么控制少年的专门机制——少年司法也就有了存在的空间,这已经为“少年法院将在20世纪寿终正寝”预言的破产所证实。近些年来,美国少年司法出现了明显的折中主义走势,从“轻轻重重”到平衡与恢复性司法模式的探索就是这种试图避免福利模式与严罚模式两极化取向的努力与尝试,也是试图折中少年罪错正式控制机制与非正式控制机制的一种尝试。这种折中主义的走势将继续成为美国少年司法未来发展中的明显特色。而2005年联邦最高法院禁止对未成年人适用死刑的裁决,也预示着美国少年司法将会进入一个反思的再反思阶段,传统少年司法的福利理念将会进一步复苏。但是,我们必须注意的是,少年仍将无法摆脱被成人“拯救”或者“惩罚”的命运,变化只在于控制的方式。更多还原

【Abstract】 The origin and change of the American juvenile justice shows that, no matter how hypocritical or straight it is, the strength of the change lies in the juvenile controlling from the adult society. Adjusting between welfare and punishment, tend towards middle of the road is the rule of juvenile justice policy development. Welfare is a kind of periphrastic juvenile control policy, the pretext to constructing juvenile justice system, and the groundwork that cannot been threw away during the development of juvenile justice.Before the 19th century, America was still at its“ex juvenile-justice”stage. At that time, the juvenile was regarded as the“little adult”so that there wasn’t a special juvenile group both being separated from the adult society and tending to make violence. As a result, there couldn’t be an independent juvenile justice at all. The state dealt with the juvenile delinquent equally as with the adult’s crime by a kind of measure like natural response which was called“retribution”.With the emergence of the“childhood concept”in the 19th century, the juvenile was gradually separated from the adult and was treated as the“minors”. That led to the birth of the special rules concerning the juvenile. As for the juvenile, they were given a unique social role by the adult society, including discipline, modesty, obedience, diligence. Then, there were the phenomena of violating these rules. It showed that the concept of“juvenile delinquency”was indeed“invented”in this sense. No sooner had the concept of juvenile come into being, than the adult society was very anxious about the group that was capable of violating the rules in such an age. At the same time, America was experiencing a transitional period: on one hand, as for the family and community, these traditional informal controlling institutions’influence waned so that they couldn’t work effectively to control the activities of the juvenile; on the other, the traditional“severe-punishment oriented”criminal justice system was strongly criticized. Consequently, setting up a juvenile justice system in order to improve the relevant controlling measures was both necessary and feasible.After the setting up of the first juvenile correction institution“Houses of Refuge”at New York in 1825, America came to have its juvenile correction institutions. In 1899, the state of Illinois made the juvenile court law and the juvenile court was established in Cook County. Later, the juvenile court movement spread widely in America. In early 20th century, the welfare-based juvenile justice mode labeled“the best interest of the juvenile”was formed in the whole country. That movement almost considered all the disobedience as delinquency which was threatening good order. Then, the juvenile court became necessary for the state to intervene and protect the young people in the name of“parens patriae”or“love”.From the 1960s, the American welfare-based juvenile justice began to face many challenges. It seemed that these challenges originated both from the lack of constitutional rights which should be vested on the juvenile and from the deviation of the due process. While, in fact, this mode lost its control on juvenile delinquency. Another important factor was that the change of the social environment in which the young people grew up made the juvenile more like an adult. As a result, the juvenile’s traditional na?ve and lovely image was largely deteriorated by their delinquent and violence.The transition of the American juvenile justice can be divided into two stages. The first stage is from the late 1960s to early 1980s, a process from“good intention”to“good deed”. People put their emphasis on the treatment that the juvenile experienced, instead of the“good intention”which the former mode had declared. In order to better the treatment in the juvenile justice system, new healing groups were formed to enhance the care and protection for the rights of the juvenile. The development of the juvenile justice in this period was greatly influenced by the newly-borne“labeling theory”in criminology and was characterized by“4D”movements, namely due process, diversion,decriminization, and deinstitutionization. The first transition of the juvenile justice which focused on juvenile protection tactically and successfully softened the line between the juvenile justice and the adult justice and then made a good preparation for the further transition, namely a control by punishment.By the influence of“Contemporary classicism”from the 1970s, the American juvenile justice tended to have a policy of severe punishment, which still governs the whole nation’s juvenile justice system nowadays. Evidently, the first transition appeared at least in the name of juvenile rights’protection, while the second just disclosed the veil of welfare and directly announced the social protection and juvenile control.With the gradual harmonization of juvenile justice and the adult justice, two confronting thoughts came into being in America: one thought is about the abolition of the juvenile court by substituting it with the adult justice system; the other supports the co-existence of the juvenile justice and the adult justice system. In fact, as long as the differences between the various conditions of the juvenile and adult are still alive, the juvenile justice system will continue to function. Although some“wise”men predicted that“Juvenile court is to die in the 20th century”, it is evident that the death of the prophecy itself has showed us the best answer.In recent years, the American juvenile justice system tends to reach a compromise: the attempt from“strike the severe crimes heavily and treat the petty ones leniently”policy to balanced and restorative justice forms an equilibrium model between the formal control system of juvenile delinquency and the informal control system. Such a compromise can avoid the disadvantages of the extreme measures from both the welfare and the punishment mode. That compromising method will continue to be a feature of the American juvenile justice system in the future. Although the verdict from the federal supreme court of America in 2005 indicating that the death penalty shouldn’t be applied to the juvenile shows that the American juvenile justice has already entered another rethinking period, we should always bear in mind that the juvenile still can’t escape from the destiny of being healed or punished by the adult. As a result, only the way of control is what really changed.更多还原